With respect, I think it's a poor line of criticism when Christians condemn the Prophet Muhammad for the fact he fought in war

This is a separate issue for criticising him for the wars he fought or his conduct in war. I'm speaking about the fact he was in war per se.

In fact, I believe it would strongly undermine the claim of someone purported to be a messenger of God had they never fought in war.

The reason is this: whether we like it or not, war is an absolutely integral and inescapable part of the human condition.

The very purpose of a messenger of God is to be a divine example and guidance to the people. So when Christians boast that their messenger

never fought in war, what they're really boasting about is that their God buried His head in the sand, completely absconding concern over

an integral part of the human condition, and leaving man to engage in warfare -- perhaps the most consequential realm of human activity --

completely according to his own whims. The effects of this are striking. Christians engage in warfare just the same as everyone else,

unsurprisingly given warfare is an inescapable part of the human condition. However unlike Muslims, they *outsource* violence. Currently,

this is to the nation-state. So what occurs is that whilst Christians engage in violence just like everyone else, the difference being they

do so with no theological oversight or constraints. Warfare exclusively on the terms of man's "fallen" whims and self-interests.

What's more, because they've outsourced violence, they get to pat themselves on the head for being so peaceful. Why? Because it's not

Christians who engage in violence, you see, it's secular nation-states! And thus you see the fundamental ruse. Over the last 4 centuries

Christians (and post-Christians) have engaged in faaar more violence than anyone else, and the same is true today. Yet because they've

outsourced their violence -- freeing it from theological constraints and thus allowing them to be so violent -- they bask in their supposed

peacefulness whilst condemning those barbaric Muslims and blaming it on the fact their messenger fought in war. I'm glad God chose not to

bury His head in the sand and leave such an integral part of human existence to our own whims. I'm thankful we were sent divine guidance in

all aspects of human existence, and not just the least consequential, leaving the most important matters to ourselves. /Fin

Addendum: Virtually every human society recognises that the warrior possesses a certain nobility. Would Christians condemn the Prophet

Muhammad if he fought for his country? No, he'd be lauded as a hero. We recognise the special virtues unique to the warrior, so how could

one be the best of humanity without ever having fought in war? How could he appeal to those who possess the nobility he lacks?

Addendum 2: All of the above also applies to the fact the Prophet was a political leader, just replace the word 'war' with 'governance'.

Also replace 'warrior' with 'ruler'; 'fighting/fought' and 'violence' with 'decisions of State' more generally; and so on.

The point of tawhīd is that God's jurisdiction covers everything, including politics, war, and government.

All spheres of life are subject to this one order, nothing is subject to any other master, whether our whims or anything else.